Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueface
I am confused. I just don't get the "we need proof" audience.
If an employer (MLB in this case), suspects and feels they have evidence an employee (A-Rod in this case and a bunch of other employees) have been involved in what they deem inappropriate and unacceptable for the work environment and said employer decides to fire some, punish others with suspensions and perhaps even excuse a few, that is wrong how? They have to prove it to who?
Question, where is their player's union? Why aren't they asking for the evidence? Or filing suit? If and when that happens, then and only then will the employer need to show said proof. Until then, they obviously feel they have the goods to support their decision.
My only gripe is how short that suspension list is and I know the reason why as there would otherwise be no players left to play the game. That is the truly sad part.
|
The MLB isn't the employer, the Yankees are (i'm assuming it still works that way). It would be a different story if the Yankees handed out punishment b/c he's signed with them. If I were a team owner, I would be highly upset if the league tried to ban one of my players without evidence.
I'm probably wrong here though in regards to the business side of the game and how it works nowadays.